Thursday, October 11, 2007

"The Terrorists"

From the moment that this shallow, trite, idiotic, ridiculously simplistic phrase "the terrorists" began to work its insidious way into the American lexicon, our political discourse has descended to a level of childishness never before seen in our history. I stifle my gag reflex every time I hear it. It's as if we're all children, and "the terrorists" have taken the place of "the bogeyman" to scare us into submission when we're being unruly. And it has worked like a charm! The media and the public have swallowed it hook, line and sinker. The administration has kept them all looking under their beds and checking closets for "the terrorists" while proceeding to start a war of aggression, eviscerate the Constitution, break the law of the land, and conduct an unprecedented executive power grab, all in the name of "protecting" us. Even the president's opponents have been suckered into this ruse by allowing him to frame our national political debate in such juvenile terms.

"However they put it, the Democrat approach in Iraq comes down to this: The terrorists win and America loses."

-- George W. Bush, Oct 30, 2006

"I wonder if they are more interested in protecting the terrorists than they are in protecting the American people."

-- John Boehner, Sep 12, 2006

"Suggestions, for example, that we should withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq simply feed into that whole notion, validates the strategy of the terrorists."

-- Dick Cheney, Sep 10, 2006

Shaddup!!!

Look people, every time these assholes say "the terrorists", instead of pissing yourself in fear like they want you to, think about who really attacked us on 9/11. It wasn't some fearsome, omnipresent enemy who represent the greatest threat to western civilization since the USSR or the Axis powers of WWII. It was 19 hijackers, financed by one rich Saudi, who penetrated our lax airport security and took advantage. That's all. The rest is all ridiculous bullshit hyperbole, designed to:

Start a war they wanted to start all along, strictly for the financial gain of the Republican Party's cronies.

Expand executive power in furtherance of the "unitary executive theory".

Make you forget the fact that these incompetent shits still haven't caught the perpetrator of the crime.

Sure, there's an Al-Qaeda problem in Iraq now, but you can thank George W. Bush for that. It didn't exist before the invasion, no matter how many lies Dick Cheney tells you. There's a bigger Al-Qaeda problem elsewhere. Bin Laden is rebuilding his organization right now in northwest Pakistan, thanks to George W. Bush failing to kill or capture him when he had the chance. So every time you hear them say "the terrorists", just make it singular and think about:

The Terrorist

If Bush would have simply done the job right in the first place and captured this animal and his buddies, and put them on trial like civilized nations do:

The big bad Al-Qaeda figurehead would be in prison instead of coming out with videos making a monkey out of Bush.

We wouldn't have lost another 4,000 people and spent half a trillion dollars in Iraq.

The rest of the world would still respect us, instead of considering us a pariah nation.

George Bush might not have destroyed his own political party.

If one were prone to express things in the childish, moronic way that George W. Bush is so fond of, they might say that he's letting "the terrorist" win. They might say that "the terrorist" is doing a fine job of kicking Bush's ass, actually.

1 comment:

You are absolutely correct. Bush presumes to rule by "false dichotomy". He's a demogogue and a bald faced liar. I wish to hell he would shut the fuck up. He's been a pox on America and the world. Like Larry Craig, he's the kind of suck ass fag that gives queers a bad name.

Blog Archive

Ask Samuel Adams:

About who is to blame for the erosion of your constitutional rights ...

Samuel Adams Says:

The liberties of our country, the freedom of our civil constitution are worth defending at all hazards; and it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have received them as a fair inheritance from our worthy ancestors: they purchased them for us with toil and danger and expense of treasure and blood, and transmitted them to us with care and diligence. It will bring an everlasting mark of infamy on the present generation, enlightened as it is, if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle, or be cheated out of them by the artifices of false and designing men.

Ask Alexander Hamilton:

About a nation that condones torture when faced with danger ...

Alexander Hamilton Says:

A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one.... Of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people, commencing demagogues and ending tyrants.

Ask Patrick Henry:

About leaders who ignore subpoenas, destroy public records, and abuse executive privilege ...

Patrick Henry Says:

The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them. The most iniquitous plots may be carried on against their liberty and happiness.I am not an advocate for divulging indiscriminately all the operations of government, though the practice of our ancestors in some degree justifies it. Such transactions as relate to military operations or affairs of great consequence, the immediate promulgation of which might defeat the interests of the community, I would not wish to be published, till the end which required their secrecy should have been effected. But to cover, with the veil of secrecy, the common routine of business, is an abomination in the eyes of every intelligent man, and every friend to his country.

Ask George Washington:

About leaders who put the interest of their political party ahead of the will of the people ...

George Washington Says:

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual, and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation on the ruins of public liberty.

Ask John Adams:

About about what happens when the people become complacent ...

John Adams Says:

Nip the shoots of arbitrary power in the bud, is the only maxim which can ever preserve the liberties of any people. When the people give way, their deceivers, betrayers and destroyers press upon them so fast that there is no resisting afterwards. The nature of the encroachments is to grow every day more encroaching; like a cancer, it eats faster and faster every hour.

Ask Thomas Jefferson:

About those rabble rousers who get out in the streets and protest ...

Thomas Jefferson Says:

I hold it that a little rebellion nowand then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions,indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government.

Ask James Madison:

About the dangers of Chief Executives eager to wage war ...

James Madison Says:

In time of actual war, great discretionary powers are constantly given to theExecutive Magistrate.Constant apprehension ofWar, has the same tendency to render the head too large for the body. A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defense against foreign danger have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people.

Ask Abraham Lincoln:

About the importance of Congress not neglecting its role in war powers ...

Abraham Lincoln Says:

The provision of the Constitution giving the war-making power to Congress was dictated, as I understand it, by the following reasons. Kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object. This, our Convention understood to be the most oppressive of all Kingly oppressions; and they resolved to so frame the Constitution that no one man should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us.

Ask Theodore Roosevelt:

About the dangers of rampant cronyism in government ...

Theodore Roosevelt Says:

The death-knell of the Republic had rung as soon as the active power became lodged in the hands of those who sought, not to do justice to all citizens, rich and poor alike, but to stand for one special class and for its interests as opposed to the interests of others.

Ask Harry Truman:

About rounding up dissenters into "free speech zones" away from news cameras at political events ...

Harry Truman Says:

Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear.

Ask Dwight D Eisenhower:

About spending nearly as much as the rest of the world combined on the military ...

Dwight D Eisenhower Says:

In the councils of government,we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Ask John F Kennedy:

About a nation where the Right wants to silence "obscene" speech, and the Left wants to silence "hate" speech ...

John F Kennedy Says:

We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people.